Canon XC-M ???

[kye]

2 hours ago, Kisaha said:

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech3335_s17.pdf

XC10 Tier 1 HD and Tier 2 UHD with noise at Tier 1, better than most!

If the XC10 was an ILC and had a 10 bit codec would be Tier 1 UHD eligible! 

I read that sheet when I first ordered my XC10 and I was quite disappointed, but I then went on to read many of the other tests on much more expensive cameras, and I found that many high-end cameras didn't have a huge amount more resolution than the XC10.

And then I read the a6300 test and ended up laughing out loud with its many many issues 

I didn't realise they've since tested the Ursa Mini and GH5s, so I've got some light reading ahead of me

For those that haven't read any of these, I highly recommend doing so:

https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_tech3335 and for older cameras https://tech.ebu.ch/camera_reports_legacy

Tests like these are a good way to cut through the internet BS and brand-loyal-myopia.

[IronFilm]

On 4/27/2018 at 12:18 PM, Damphousse said:

Is that how patents work?  So you can patent something and never use it and sue anyone who ever does?!  That doesn't sound correct. 

Unfortunately yes, this is often how patents get used. 

 

On 4/27/2018 at 12:18 PM, Damphousse said:

There are a lot of companies that infringe on other companies' patents and a lot of the time they just come to some type of licensing agreement.

Often another company unintentionally infringes, then another company comes along and shuts them down. 

 

For instance I bet that is what happened with Tascam when they brought out their DR10

On 4/27/2018 at 12:22 PM, kye said:

As the owner of an XC10 I find these topics fascinating.

This forum (and most of the internet) completely ridiculed the first two versions of this camera, yet Canon claim they sold more than they were anticipating and the Cinematography Database YT channel seems to run into them on professional sets on a semi-regular basis.  This leads me to believe that the internet doesn't understand the design brief and associated tradeoffs of this camera.

I have only came across it once, and that was a few weeks ago. On a professional shoot, as a last resort back up option just in case their rented C300mk2 failed on them (apparently their XC15 is their in house camera the agency uses when they can't afford to rent in a camera such as the C300mk2)  

[Matt James Smith ?]

12 hours ago, Kisaha said:

If the XC10 was an ILC and had a 10 bit codec would be Tier 1 UHD eligible! 

The XC10 spits out real 10-bit 422 via HDMI

[Mokara]

On ‎2018‎-‎04‎-‎27 at 5:18 PM, kye said:

Really?

Apart from trying to get shallow depth-of-field (which of course a smaller sensor can't do as well) what else would you say would give it away?

This is an important question because if there isn't anything then potentially every small aperture shot on every show shot on Canon could be the XC10 and you would never know.

If your set is shooting on Canon, using CFast cards with C-Log, and you had an external car shot (which is going to have deep depth of field) then why would you put a C300 on there instead of a camera that is wildly cheaper?  or if you're shooting in 4K on a C200 then what would you put in there that can shoot 4K?

You only have to look at a series of posts like this from the Hurlblog (http://www.thehurlblog.com/cinematography-turning-your-gopro-hero-3/) to see what kind of lengths they had to go to to make a GoPro cinematic.  Would it have been cheaper just to buy an XC10, ND filter, and put it in Shutter Priority mode?  You can bet your ass it would have been.  

If you're doing anything where there is a danger of wrecking a camera then chances are the cost of the shot far exceeds the damage done to the camera, and the savings in post of not having to grade some other completely unsuitable camera would be huge.  Besides, the fact they used a GoPro in a movie all the more reinforces that an XC10 would be able to be hidden amongst footage from better cameras.  Unless you think that an XC10 isn't better quality footage than a GoPro?  In which case, well done for reading this far, or owning a computer, or being able to ...  you know..  type and stuff.

And unless there's something else that a smaller sensor can't do except shallow DOF, "go and get me B-Roll of the sunset and people playing on the beach" would be a pretty reasonable gig for a camera like this.

I was never making the argument that the XC10 is the best camera in the world (it's definitely not) - it was this forum that concluded that it could never be used professionally for any paid work (to paraphrase one of the posts in the original thread).  

I still maintain that the people on this forum got it horribly wrong the first time around, and so far you haven't provided any counter-arguments or evidence to the contrary.

I definitely agree with this.

I would imagine that there is also an element of 'fishing' going on, in case you accidentally patent something that ends up being useful that you can get some royalties on down the track?

Higher end cameras have a lot more processing power than an XC10, so that would reflect in any sort of image processing that goes on. Beyond that, the sensor on the XC10 is physically different from that used on Canon's Cxxx cameras, and that physical different WILL have an effect on the image. Unless the cameras are using the same physical sensor and have the same processing capabilities and have the same front end interface chips, they are not going to produce the same image. They may look similar, but they will not be the same.

GoPros are intended to be mounted on small objects to provide a POV of what that object experiences. I would like to see a cyclist or hanglider pilot with a XC10 attached to his helmet.

Companies like Canon don't go around filing patents because they think they are going to get royalties, they do it specifically to protect their actual products and to make life difficult for anyone who might think about competing. Other camera tech companies are doing the same, and probably most of them have some sort of cross licensing going on, or at least "understandings" in place so they can operate. You wonder why some companies only seem to be serious about DSLRs while others focus on MILCs? There is a reason for that. It relates to freedom to operate, what you can do and when you can do it without legal consequences.

[kye]

6 hours ago, Mokara said:

Higher end cameras have a lot more processing power than an XC10, so that would reflect in any sort of image processing that goes on. Beyond that, the sensor on the XC10 is physically different from that used on Canon's Cxxx cameras, and that physical different WILL have an effect on the image. Unless the cameras are using the same physical sensor and have the same processing capabilities and have the same front end interface chips, they are not going to produce the same image. They may look similar, but they will not be the same.

I never said the image would be the same,I said it would be indistinguishable, which would be easily achievable by someone who knows their stuff in post.  This is assuming that the camera is used for deeper depth-of-field and well lit situations.

I provided a link to the Hurlblog confirming that a GoPro was used in a feature film.  If a GoPro can be made acceptable in a feature film then I think you're crazy to say that two cameras by the same manufacturer shooting in controlled conditions with the same colour profile can't be made to look indistinguishable from each other by a skilled colourist.

6 hours ago, Mokara said:

GoPros are intended to be mounted on small objects to provide a POV of what that object experiences. I would like to see a cyclist or hanglider pilot with a XC10 attached to his helmet.

Just because an XC10 isn't a good size for a head-mount doesn't mean it's not sensible for any other application where size and disposability (ie cost) matter.  Vehicle mounts and many other applications where camera weight and potential damage exist on set.

Do you think that someone shooting on a C300 would choose a to mount a GoPro or C300 to a car instead of an XC10?  

6 hours ago, Mokara said:

Companies like Canon don't go around filing patents because they think they are going to get royalties, they do it specifically to protect their actual products and to make life difficult for anyone who might think about competing.

Are you saying that no-one within Canon has ever considered that this might be a side-benefit?  Your life must be amazing to know what dozens of people are thinking!  I mentioned that it's a part of the picture, not the main goal.

My original point was that there are uses for this camera, as consumers we wouldn't know it was being used, there is evidence that it is being used, and therefore this forum (and the wider internet) is completely useless at predicting or evaluating this camera.  You still haven't shown any evidence or argument refusing my assertion.

[Fingerstein]

If XC10/XC15 had interchangeable lens and 4K  recording on SD Cards, I would definitely had one, already. But my only option was C100 MK2 at that time. This system looks exactly what I would need. Some compromise for shooting a concert, for example, with a super zoom option... or if I need a more cinematic look, I could easily adapt the lens with that speedbooster. But having a cheap camera recording huge files on expensive CFast cards... This was a strange way to go...

[RWR]

Any thoughts on lead time  between patent and introduction?

[kye]

7 minutes ago, RWR said:

Any thoughts on lead time  between patent and introduction?

My understanding is that it's somewhere between "in a while" and "never".

I certainly wouldn't be making any plans on it!

[RWR]

Yah..kinda figured...

[mercer]

I think there has been some rumors that it may be announced at Photokina.

[kye]

Just In Time For Christmas!!!!

This space is really hotting up..  A7III, Fuji XH1, BMPCC4K, GH5, etc - so many great options in the compact-4K space!  and more to come I'm sure with A7SIII probably only a release cycle away.